Dismissed¶6

Devender Kumar Verma v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Nov 2025LPA/132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

LPA No.132 of 2025 dismissed — Assured Career Progression Scheme benefits for 9 years' regular service w.e.f. 01.01.2015; Notification dated 09.08.2012; delay and laches; fence sitter; Sanjay Kumar CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 (decided 01.11.2023); SLP(C) No.27726-27729/2024; Supreme Court order dated 02.09.2025 staying contempt proceedings; liberty to file revival application; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; G.S. Sandhawalia CJ and Jiya Lal Bhardwaj J; approved for reporting.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; liberty reserved to the appellant to file an application for revival in case the order in Sanjay Kumar is upheld. ¶6

Devender Kumar Verma Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2025:HHC:38301 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

LPA No.132 of 2025

¶4

Decided on: 12^th November, 2025

¶5

Devender Kumar Verma .......Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and others ...Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the appellant: Mr.Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶12

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.12757 of 2024, wherein the benefits on completion of 9 years of regular service was sought w.e.f. 01.01.2015, as per Notification dated 09.08.2012 and subsequent instructions issued in the year 2014.

¶13

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

( 2025:HHC:38301 )

¶15

¶16

Reliance was also placed on the judgment passed by this Court in CWPOA No.5536 of 2020 titled as Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , decided on 01.11.2023.

¶17

The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was hit by the principle of delay and laches, as the petitioner was a fence sitter. Merely because the decision had come in Sanjay Kumar (supra) , the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme which were being sought w.e.f. 01.01.2015 thus could not be given.

¶18

We are now informed that even the judgment passed in Sanjay Kumar’s case (supra), is subject matter of SLP(C) No.27726-27729/2024 and the Apex Court, vide order dated 02.09.2025 in sum and substance had stayed the contempt proceedings based on the impugned order. Therefore, it is apparent that the said order cannot be executed.

¶19